Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[Winni]

The fact is that OSX being only able to run on Apple hardware is as legitimate as the Blackberry OS only able to run on its hardware.

The big difference is that the Blackberry OS is not sold without hardware, but OS X can be bought freely and a Macintosh is not an embedded device like the iPhone or the iPod Touch (whose operating system also is not sold separately). Legally and technically, embedded devices are a completely different subject than Personal Computers - the software actually is an integrated part of the embedded device. In a PC, the operating system is not.

Today's Macs use only standard PC hardware and only the EULA of OS X restricts the choice of hardware the customer can run this system on.

There certainly are enough countries where this specific paragraph of the Apple EULA ("only on an Apple-labeled computer") actually violates laws and where Apple wouldn't stand a chance with their claims and would not be "entitled to do so".

 

[babyj]

There is a contradiction in Apple's position on this, in that they encourage the installation of non-Apple OS's on their computers, they even created Boot Camp to make it easy. So on the one hand they want everyone to be able to install non-Apple OS's on their computers but on the other they don't want anyone to install their OS on a non-Apple computer.

How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts? Everyone would be screaming blue murder, anti-trust, anti-competitive and everything else they can think of.

How many people have complained about Apple protecting movies with HDCP so that you can only play them on certain hardware, saying that you should be able to do what you want with them once you have paid? How many of those same people are defending Apple doing the same thing with their OS in this thread? Probably a fair few.

I think both side are being pretty stupid about it all. Apple aren't going to lose much and if anything will end up gaining some new customers as people use it as an introduction to their products and then switch.

Psystar could of been a bit more clever about how they sold their computers - not pre-loading Mac OS, not modifying it and instead selling it as Mac OS compatible then pointing everyone at a 3rd party website which has the hacks to get it running. Or something like that.

 

[gehrbox]

The title for this story should have been "Judge kills the original MacRumors Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer thread."

"During an interview with Fox news it was reported that the goal of a 2000 message thread on the subject has been undermined by a new more worthy thread."

"Fox quoted inside sources who reported that the new thread is likely to generate a much higher volume of message posts from the "Open OS X" supporters. There is also expected to be a considerable volume of gloating Apple FanBoy message traffic."

 

[DigitalM]

There certainly are enough countries where this specific paragraph of the Apple EULA ("only on an Apple-labeled computer") actually violates laws and where Apple wouldn't stand a chance with their claims and would not be "entitled to do so".

I don't believe that's true, and challenge you to name a single similar case.

 

[AppleMojo]

Behind closed doors, We should be able to do whatever we want. If we want to run Apple Soft on non-Apple Hardware, we should be able to do so, if that is what we want. We should not force anyone to do it, though. I vote for freedom! We are a great country. The only one, it seems, which can put together an operating system. That must mean something...doesn't it? Or is Apple and Microsoft operating systems written by the Chinese? Now that I think of it, it could be the Chinese writing the software...

NO! Don't you dare compare selfish behavior to freedom! What on earth!? Your type is exactly what is wrong with this world. You believe that you can do whatever it is you want, whenever and however... now you just do it in your own home with the blinds shut. Sickens me, as I imagine the majority of the world.

What you do behind closed doors? Are you kidding me? I can think of lots of things that shouldn't be done regardless of whether a door is open or closed.

Because it is out of sight does not make it legal!

Remember this, who you are when nobody is looking, is truly who you are.

 

[corinhorn]

I don't understand... Apple's the one who makes OSX. Why can't they choose which computers they want to run it on? Why don't they have the right to decide that?

They do. But nowadays, several people have an "entitlement" mentality.

 

[batchtaster]

Apple is the Mac market. Just as Nintendo is the Wii market.

My problem with Psystar is not that they want to compete with Apple, but that they are attempting to redefine a segment that is not theirs to redefine. If the Mac arena changes, it should (and could) only be done by Apple. This is not the same as Apple trying to "redefine" the phone/music player/whatever market, as nobody owns these segments.

It's like someone other than Nintendo trying to cut in on the Wii market and forcibly open it up to other vendors without Nintendo's approval. Is Nintendo anti-competitive because they don't offer the Wii OS for non-Wii hardware? Of course Psystar should be stopped.

And it's not as if Apple or Nintendo are without any competition. They own the widget, but they are in competition with other widget makers. You don't like the widget, buy someone else's.

Today's Macs use only standard PC hardware and only the EULA of OS X restricts the choice of hardware the customer can run this system on.

The technological reason why you could or might want to is irrelevant. And whether you buy the OS separately or with a machine, the same EULA applies. So, claiming that the fact that they sell the OS separately makes a difference is nonsense - you agree to the same terms for the little (software) box or the big (hardware) box, or you breach the terms and place yourself in legal jeopardy.

I would have to agree with another poster that this seems to be all about "entitlement". "But, I should be able to..." is not a justification for breaching an EULA that you've agree to by proceeding to install/unpack/break-the-seal/whatever.

 

[milo]

Name me one machine/architecture outside of Macs, that OS X runs on.

There are none (without hacking).

And that's perfectly legal for apple to do, as the judge explicitly said.

Frankly it doesn't matter if there are other machines that run OSX or not, apple is perfectly in their rights to only allow running it on their hardware.

The big difference is that the Blackberry OS is not sold without hardware, but OS X can be bought freely and a Macintosh is not an embedded device like the iPhone or the iPod Touch

But it is made clear to the consumer that OSX only runs on mac hardware. The judge said, flat out, that this is completely fine for apple to do - did you even read the article?

It doesn't matter that OSX is sold separately (since it says that it only runs on macs), and it doesn't matter that the mac isn't an embedded device.

It simply isn't illegal to sell an OS that only runs on hardware from one manufacturer. Period.

How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts? Everyone would be screaming blue murder, anti-trust, anti-competitive and everything else they can think of.

Absolutely, it would be anticompetitive...but that's only because windows is a virtual monopoly since it has 90% market share.

 

[paric]

How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts? Everyone would be screaming blue murder, anti-trust, anti-competitive and everything else they can think of.

That would be Microsoft's right, but it would be an unusual move since they would only be defying their own business model.

As it is, they would love to have their OS on 100% of Macs. They could then have near 100% market share, and still have competition from Apple to keep the anti-trust folks happy.

You're right. People would be upset and say foolish things like the things being stated in this thread. More than that, it would just be a really weird move for MS.

 

[paric]

NO! Don't you dare compare selfish behavior to freedom! What on earth!? Your type is exactly what is wrong with this world. You believe that you can do whatever it is you want, whenever and however... now you just do it in your own home with the blinds shut. Sickens me, as I imagine the majority of the world.

What you do behind closed doors? Are you kidding me? I can think of lots of things that shouldn't be done regardless of whether a door is open or closed.

Because it is out of sight does not make it legal!

Remember this, who you are when nobody is looking, is truly who you are.

I really don't think kamchadal had human sacrifice in mind.

 

[jlubinsh]

You all are talking ****!

That was very predictable. And welcome.

First I would like to clear one thing : I am a huge Apple fan!!! so all i tell now is not because I do not like Apple, but because I DO LOVE Apple!

It is all a bit complicated, but in short all of you who defend Apple are actually defending Apples blindness to YOUR REQUESTS!!!

for example who of Iphone 3G users would say that they do not need copy&past feature or flash in Iphones safari? HA! The only reason you do not have those loudly requested features is because Apple knows it have loyal user base so it does not have to hurry up! some guy could make copy&past feature by him self, and Adobe is SCREAMING that THEY ARE going to invest resources so you could use FULL browser on your iPhone (Not some baby internet without flash)
The problem is that Apple does not have to hurry to please your needs because they know that there is HUGE user base that WILL WAIT and that WILL GIVE money for not ready product!
So the bottom line is that Apple NEEDS some stimulation to get EVEN BETTER products for sale.

With the iPhone this Was just example!

Getting back to Mac:

Today are so many people that really DO NOT CARE HOW THIN iMAC IS!!! Just Because it is real marketing ********.
I have the last edition of white iMac's and it is actually the same in term of thin that the "thinnest" iMac we ever shipped!!! Why? Because if you put you iMac on the table it thinness is not the side off it's body, but it is actually the distance from the front off body till the end of the iMac's leg!!!
For my iMac it is 15 centimeters that is 5.9 inch.
When I am sitting in front of my iMac - I don't care how thick it is - or HOW THICK IT'S BODY IS!!! I just DO NOT SEE IT!

Knowing that you can easily put regular DESKTOP CLASS COMPONENTS - CPU, GPU in BOX THAT IS 57 cm wide x46 hight x15 depth for the same price that Apple charges for iMac and get MUCH MUCH BETTER performance!!! it REALY HURT'S

I even CAN NOT use Apples OWN product's properly because I can not afford the MAC PRO!

For example Time machine - it is perfect when you have 2 internal hard drives! but the only mac that allows it is MAC PRO!

I often use final cut studio, BUT NOT so often and not for business so it is not O.K. for me to bye MAC PRO!
But I know that today's intel technology (not even i7) allows to get MUCH MUCH greater computing power from machine that is built for $2,599.00 USD (the price for best iMac you can bye)

I know I have written much, but the button line is:

I love Apple! Today I am using ONLY Apple computers (I have 3 of them)
But I clearly know that Apple is NOT HONEST to all of it customers, because they are NOT DOING BEST THEY CAN! (one of the parts is that they do not offer desktop class products (imac is notebook class product in terms of PRICE&PERFORMANCE)

this hurt's me!
I really hoped that Psystar WILL GIVE APPLE a lesson, and that Apple would just show that they can make BETTER offer to they LOYAL customers! What would be SUPERB for All of US!!! (You All are writing in you comment's regarding some rumors that this is exactly what you want! and now you are stating that Psystar is Bad! - SOME ONE NEEDS TO SHAKE APPLE so it START'S to listen to it's customers even more!!!

Sorry for my bad english (I was writing this post for few hours because I needed to use online dictionaries)
But the button line is that I love Apple, and I am suer that they can do Better that Just earning money - I believe that Apple should learn something from Google - first do good to lot of people by giving them great value and then thing of revenues!
Got luck to all of you!!!

 

[ditzy]

How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts? Everyone would be screaming blue murder, anti-trust, anti-competitive and everything else they can think of.

Actually that is completly different, What apple is doing is saying you can only use their OS on their computers.
Microsoft would not be saying that they would be saying that you can't use their OS on Apple computers.
If Microsoft started making PC's then said that windows could only be used on the PC's they made I'd say fair enough.
But that is not their model of business, and if they did as you suggested they would be singleing out apple. Which is different to what apple are doing as they are excluding everyone else from using their OS.

 

[Winni]

One last thought on this:

Imagine Apple would sell their Macs with an EULA that says "you are not allowed to run Microsoft Windows on this computer (or GNU/Linux or FreeBSD)", and that same judge would have said today "Apple is certainly entitled to do so".

Wouldn't that be the very same thing? It's a rhetorical question: Yes, it IS the same thing, because in both cases it is Apple restricted your rights to use the products they sold to you.

But strangely enough, a ruling like this would seem unfathomable even to the greatest Apple zealot.

 

[bitWrangler]

One last thought on this:

Imagine Apple would sell their Macs with an EULA that says "you are not allowed to run Microsoft Windows on this computer (or GNU/Linux or FreeBSD)", and that same judge would have said today "Apple is certainly entitled to do so".

Wouldn't that be the very same thing? It's a rhetorical question: Yes, it IS the same thing, because in both cases it is Apple restricted your rights to use the products they sold to you.

But strangely enough, a ruling like this would seem unfathomable even to the greatest Apple zealot.

How is that strange? That would be a bad marketing move and that's why most "Apple zealots" would find it unfathomable. Plus you and others are again missing the bigger picture. Apple has never gone after an individual for running a hackintosh, this is all about a companies right to protect itself against other companies.

 

[bitWrangler]

Actually that is completly different, What apple is doing is saying you can only use their OS on their computers.
Microsoft would not be saying that they would be saying that you can't use their OS on Apple computers.
If Microsoft started making PC's then said that windows could only be used on the PC's they made I'd say fair enough.
But that is not their model of business, and if they did as you suggested they would be singleing out apple. Which is different to what apple are doing as they are excluding everyone else from using their OS.

And taking this full circle, because of Microsoft's dominant position in the marketplace, they would likely face stiff regulatory opposition to selling M$ branded PC's. This is on top of the massive backlash that is likely from other OEM's

 

[Sun Baked]

How is that strange? That would be a bad marketing move and that's why most "Apple zealots" would find it unfathomable. Plus you and others are again missing the bigger picture. Apple has never gone after an individual for running a hackintosh, this is all about a companies right to protect itself against other companies.

Yep, the EULA is used more as a tool for managing licenses at a company level and whacking the cloners and pirates on the head.

If an individual makes an ass of himself, he may get spanked. But it is usually cheaper to simply let the criminal courts have him. aka, bye bye pirate.

 

[bradl]

And taking this full circle, because of Microsoft's dominant position in the marketplace, they would likely face stiff regulatory opposition to selling M$ branded PC's. This is on top of the massive backlash that is likely from other OEM's

And if I'm reading this case right, this cements the fact that there will be no OEMs as far as any MacOS is concerned..?

BL.

 

[krimsen]

amazing how many people are flaming psystar on this...

it may be perfectly legal for Apple to tie OS X to its hardware, but is it fair? Without the open source community, OS X would not be what it is today, yet Apple only used the community for as much as they could without opening the OS.

Legally, Apple has done nothing wrong, yet their business practices are nothing better than those of, say, MS.

 

[ditzy]

One last thought on this:

Imagine Apple would sell their Macs with an EULA that says "you are not allowed to run Microsoft Windows on this computer (or GNU/Linux or FreeBSD)", and that same judge would have said today "Apple is certainly entitled to do so".

Wouldn't that be the very same thing? It's a rhetorical question: Yes, it IS the same thing, because in both cases it is Apple restricted your rights to use the products they sold to you.

But strangely enough, a ruling like this would seem unfathomable even to the greatest Apple zealot.

You right it would be the same thing. However it makes no sense to apple to do what you suggested as that would turn a lot of people away from using macs. I certainly wouldn't use one if I could not use windows.
However I wouldn't think that they were morally wrong not to allow it. I'd just think that they were stupid.
With not allowing OSX to be used on PC's they are neither wrong or stupid.

 

[paric]

yap yap yap

It is not Apple's responsibility to make you able to afford their products. That is your responsibility. If you want it, you need to earn it.

If Apple is really as cruel and lazy as you suggest, you really shouldn't support them by purchasing and using their products. Go buy something from Bill Gates, patron saint of business ethics.

 

[kjs862]

Man I really hope we see a desktop class mac on MWSF this year and put an end to all of this.

 

[NAG]

I am continually amazed at this warped view of what Microsoft got nailed for. Here is a hint, they didn't get nailed for not allowing their OS to run on any hardware under the sun.

This is insane circular reasoning. You can't just say "Apple is anticompetitive because they don't license their OS which means I can't do something I want to do which means they're anticompetitive." They haven't extorted other companies or used their position to gain an unfair advantage.

I mean, the only thing that comes remotely close to anticompetitive is Apple's dealing with the music and movie industry with respect to the iTunes Music Store. Unfortunately, for the Anti-Apple folks even that falls through because you can play MP3s, aiffs, and un-DRMed aac files on the iPod (they just aren't licensing WMA so you can't play that). If it came to light that Apple was threatening the music industry with decreased royalty rates or something then yeah that would be anticompetitive (I have no idea how Apple could threaten the music industry as they are in no position, just look at NBC leaving iTunes as an example).

 

[Jeff Hall]

Why is it so many of you think there should be a distinction between hardware and software when both are bundled into a widget made by THE SAME company?

Where is it written in the law that if I put some software that *I* wrote on hardware that *I* designed that I'm obligated to sell *either* of these components separately to you, the consumer?

I think the problem here is consumers have been used to an Operating System being sold by one vendor for use on hardware made by another.

I am *very* against any ruling that would dictate Apple has to make its OS available apart from its hardware. That just does not make any sense to me.

For all those who complain Apple hardware is underpowered and overpriced, you are obviously placing a lot more value on the hardware of a computer than the software that runs it. Stop making this distinction, you cannot compare it to a vanilla flavored box with some other OS on it. It's just not a fair comparison. The hardware and the software are an atomic unit of value. Period. Stop thinking you're entitled to one without the other when it comes to an Apple product. Why? Because they make the WHOLE DAMN THING. IT'S THEIR PRODUCT.

Those that say Apple isn't competitive ought to look at their skyrocketing year over year growth. No one else in PC land is even close.

Just my opinion (like every other post on this forum).

 

[corinhorn]

it may be perfectly legal for Apple to tie OS X to its hardware, but is it fair?

Screw "fair." If Psystar really wants to be competitive and actually make a difference, they should get off their lazy asses and develop something worthwhile rather than stealing a slice of a pie that someone else created and earned success from.

 

[Clive At Five]

@Milo, I don't know of any non-monopoly anti-competitive cases in particular. I'm not taking sides in the case until there's a verdict. It just seems a bit of a double standard to nail big guys for tying and not small guys. What do we do if Apple grow to 80% market share... when does it become wrong?

Again, not sticking up for either side, just saying that if there was any chance for Psystar to make a case was to use a tying argument. If anticompetitive laws apply to all companies (as I think they should) they could *feasibly* argue that Apple's hardware is basically equivalent to generic hardware, and therefore tying OS X to it is functionally irrelevant and therefore, falls under the definition of anticompetitive Tying.

Not making that case myself, just laying out the only possibly way Psystar could win.

NO! Don't you dare compare selfish behavior to freedom! What on earth!? Your type is exactly what is wrong with this world. You believe that you can do whatever it is you want, whenever and however... now you just do it in your own home with the blinds shut. Sickens me, as I imagine the majority of the world.

What you do behind closed doors? Are you kidding me? I can think of lots of things that shouldn't be done regardless of whether a door is open or closed.

Because it is out of sight does not make it legal!

And something "illegal" does not make it ethically wrong. Just because our government/justice system declares it to be "right" doesn't make it right. There are a lot of government practices that I find extremely unethical, for example, taking $700 billion in tax-payer money to save corporations that are suffering because of greedy and corrupt practices, instead of letting them die as they should. But since it was agreed upon by our entire legislative system it's okay?

Regardless, moving on.

I have a pile of hardware, I bought this piece of software in the Apple store, legally. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install it on the pile of hardware I have? Because it doesn't have an Apple sticker?

And performing such an installation would make me a moral heathen?

I don't think Psystar has a right to sell faux Macs, but I don't think Apple has a right to micromanage where I install software I legally purchased.